Back next week!

My much-needed sabbatical is over. I’ll be back writing and blogging next week.

In the first couple of posts I’ll sketch out what to expect from WtD this year.

Shorter version: I’ve decided to pay far less attention to refuting every argument or nonsense claim put forward by the sceptics movement.

Enough time and energy has been spent on the sceptics. I’m hoping to take a much broader view of the issue of climate change, our collective failure to address the challenge and the urgent necessity to start adapting to a much hotter world.

I hope the content will be interesting, challenging and – by necessity – controversial.

Thanks for you patience and the continued visits to the blog.

Mike @ WtD

About these ads

58 thoughts on “Back next week!

  1. john byatt says:

    televangelist Pat Robertson claimed that the recent cold snap in North America and a ship stuck in Antarctica prove that climate change is nothing but a myth,

    no pat, your jesus is a myth

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/robertson-climate-change-myth-created-money-hungry-scientists#sthash.nna5h4eP.dpuf

  2. John, what “hiatus” The global heat engine continues warming unabated, just because the reading of one component isn’t rising as fast as some expect, does not mean that heat isn’t going into other components of the system.

    Greenhouse gases = atmospheric insulation
    The more we add the more it holdings in heat.

    • john byatt says:

      the hiatus in ipcc ar5 uses the word pause but places it in inverted commas
      the Hiatus does not mean stopped, cooling nor even a pause, it only refers to the fact that the surface warming trend of the past decade was less than the previous decade,

      of course i agree with everything you have stated global warming continues and the surface warming also continues

      Hiatus in this sense refers to “interruption in the continuity of a previous trend”

      the fact that the surface continues to warm is proven by

      http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

      the last decade was warmer than the previous as confirmed above

      see more @ .realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-ipcc-ar5-attribution-statement/

      (paste and copy url)

      • john byatt says:

        here are the surface anomalies for the past three decades GISS

        .591
        .471
        .240

        large increase from .240 to .471 but less from .471 to .591 yet even a quiet sun, pollution aerosols and more la nina episodes have not been able to stop the surface warming , AGW has now overwhelmed all nature can throw at it

        there is a massive increase between last and third last decade from .240 to .591 (more than double)

        following RC for years I would have to agree with Gavin that the CS is over 3DegC

        any sane person would be frightened for their children of what lies ahead

  3. RE: J Giddeon says:
    January 26, 2014 at 7:45 am
    Alarmist ueber alles
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    That’s the game denialist play – vague on claims, big on innuendo
    And Watts is masterful with his dog whistle
    . . . and always that bottom line

    Profits Über Alles !

    And the innuendo that unless, scientists can prove it 100% it ain’t true and can be ignored.

  4. J Giddeon says:

    In a better world Turney would end up wearing the cost and the opprobrium for this.

    But instead I’m sure the Oz taxpayer will end up carrying the can and Turney will go on to have a glittering and lucrative career telling us how more ice proves its getting warmer.

  5. john byatt says:

    Sou reports on the stupid at Watts,, a real classic

    Bob Tisdale says “it’s obvious”
    January 26, 2014 at 4:59 am
    markstoval says: “One question. Why is there not some agreed upon method or rule for choosing the base period? I always get the feeling that there is bias in the choice of the baseline period no matter who picks it.”

    You’d have ask the three suppliers.
    But the other question is, why aren’t they using 1981 to 2010 for base years as requested by the WMO? The answer to that is obvious: the anomalies wouldn’t look so high using the most recent 30-year window (ending on a multiple of 10). It’s all a matter of perspective

    • Nick says:

      “…the anomalies wouldn’t look so high…”

      Tisdale is not the sharpest pencil. And there he is at Watts ‘answering’ questions!

  6. Gregory T says:

    And yet you fail to show even one accredited, or any for that matter, link to Watts creditably. And yet you preach from his gospel like it is gods truth…..oh, that’s right, to do otherwise, would require verifiable evidence, which would require higher order thinking and why would you do that, when the Good Book answers all your questions.

    • J Giddeon says:

      Why is this so hard for you to understand my boy. I wasn’t looking to defend Watt’s credibility I was simply pointing out that JB’s childish accusation was complete BS.

      I don’t think that the Gospel answers all or any of my questions. Just because I think JC was a real man doesn’t mean I accept the whole legend.

      With people like you its all black and white. Watts is black so anyone who sees anything other than black must see white. No grey in your life, heh?

      • john byatt says:

        he was referring to your watts adoration nothing to do with JC

        am not going to carry it over to this thread but you know what credibility “I think” has
        SFA and all your so called proofs vanished, probably why you cut your losses

        • J Giddeon says:

          “he was referring to your watts adoration nothing to do with JC”

          Still struggling with that darned comprehension thingy?

          “why would you do that, when the Good Book answers all your questions.”

        • john byatt says:

          “link to Watts creditably. And yet you preach from his gospel like it is gods truth

  7. john byatt says:

    giddeon you are not just hoist on the comments you make but also on those comments you avoid

    it is blindingly obvious to all here

  8. J Giddeon says:

    Perhaps now that even “Nature” (as well as nature) has agreed that “The biggest mystery in climate science today ” is the hiatus, just perhaps this blog could allow it to be mentioned. You know, so as to maintain some semblance of relevance.

  9. john byatt says:

    didn’t some clothhead here claim that watts has never stated that an ice age is coming ?

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/anthony-watts-heading-for-mini-ice-age.html

    • J Giddeon says:

      ahem, that was me and when you show us where Watts has indeed said we are headed for an ice age (rather than tangentially quoting people who think we are headed toward a Maunder Minimum condition), then I’ll apologise with all the profusion I can muster. In the meantime….

      • Nick says:

        Anthony Watts, in an interview by James Stafford at Oilprice.com:

        Via technology, we can always apply ways to keep cool, but we really can’t get out of the way of advancing mile-thick ice sheets when the next ice age starts making an appearance. I think we worry about the wrong problem; cold is the biggest threat to humanity, not warmth.

        Nicely hedged, eh, Gids?

      • Gregory T says:

        It’s really sad, when a person who claims to have a “BA”, in god knows what (pun intended), attempts to give credence to a man who’s only claim to fame, is that, of a weatherman, faux newsman and blogger, who to use your word, tangentially, only uses other people’s words, because he has no credibility of his own, therefor relying on the words of the spurious, the refuted and the untested, to spread the disinformation amongst his flock. Show us, where Watts has any tested credibility on the subject at hand and that we should await his pronouncements to satisfy your criteria for an apology. Perhaps you should stick to the religious thing, where evidence and credibility, have limited application.

        • Nick says:

          Yep, Watts has been tested! And busted!

          Watts staked and tested his credibility with his surface stations assertions. He failed, badly, then promised a new paper that just never,ever appears. He backed BEST because he thought he knew the results…clang!

          Despite these simple, obvious failures, Watts carries on blithely…because he doesn’t play by the rules he demands of others. That Oilprice.com interview is a case in point: in front of a sympathetic interviewer, Watts just pretends that he has not been unambiguously refuted on surface stations, and lies through his teeth.

    • J Giddeon says:

      Alarmist ueber alles

      Among the brethren, the ‘others’ are always wrong. Watts is the opposition so any accusation against him is, by definition, true. It matters not that there isn’t evidence for the accusation – he’s one of the bad guys and so an accusation must be true.

      Worse still, pointing out that there is no evidence, isn’t (as I would have thought) something to be considered but is treated, among the brethren, to be an attempt to give Watts credence.

      Watts has never said we are headed for an ice age in any meaningful time frame. But that doesn’t matter to you learned gentlemen. He’s the enemy and that’s the important thing. Right?

      And that right there folks, is why this whole debate has degenerated into high farce and why the warmists are slowly being marginalised.

      • john byatt says:

        “Watts has never said we are headed for an ice age in any meaningful time frame.”

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/02/terrifying-new-book-about-climate-change/

        “Normally I don’t go for anonymous guest posters, but this one is from the famous “zombie” of zombietime.com whose identity remains hidden so that he/she may continue to record the anarchy and socially bereft behavior that permeates the McKibbenesque protestor culture of America. Zombie wrote to me yesterday asking that I bring attention to the post, and I’m happy to do so. The text is below, but please follow the link to the evidence (dozens of scanned pages) presented.

        The Coming of the New Ice Age: End of the Global Warming Era?

        sure

        • john byatt says:

          must have sounded like a good word

          “socially bereft behavior”

          any ideas, got it wrong way around or what? “Socially deprived behavior”?

  10. Dr No says:

    I have just read several reports about a study claiming that climate change will lead to a doubling of the frequency of so-called “super El Ninos” (e.g. such as 1982/3 and 1997/98).
    However, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, Kevin Trenberth, has criticised the study.

    This raises the issue of how reputable (warmist) scientists should deal with possible dubious (warmist) studies. Ideally, scientists should be free to be critical of all published work – both by denialist-types and warmist-types. However, we live in politically sensitive times and there seems to be a reluctance to give solace to the”enemy” by criticising any of our “own”.

    On the other hand, unless we are even-handed, we risk the possibility of eventually damaging the messages associated with good science if we blithely accept any (crap) published material that appears to support our own world views.

    Maybe this is worth discussing this year?

    • john byatt says:

      looks like scientists doing what they do, questioning and searching for answers

      http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-could-make-super-el-ninos-more-likely-16976

      “While the results show an increase in the number of abnormally strong El Ninos, they don’t show a change in the total number of El Ninos. The study also shows that the the current influence El Nino has on weather elsewhere is unlikely to change. Both are results that other studies have found as well.

      The core of Cai’s results, that more super El Ninos are likely, was disputed by Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

      He said some of the models used in the study overestimate the past number of El Nino events by a wide margin and do a poor job of representing them and their impacts.”

      It really does not explain the actual position of Trenberth whether he thinks the study is an overestimation or underestimation,

      you have any other info good Dr?

      • john byatt says:

        How the deniers have spun it,

        Alarmist becomes skeptic on climate models: Trenberth admits new …
        hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/…/alarmist-becomes-skeptic-on-climate.htm…‎
        4 days ago – -Kevin Trenberth to Michael E Mann, Climategate email 10/12/2009 · Climate Change Could Double Likelihood of Super El Ninos. Published: ..

        it would appear that it would be impossible to have a sane debate with the deniers in any case

      • Dr No says:

        The issue here is whether the conclusions are justified by the data. Knowing how poorly El Ninos are represented by the climate models, it seems a bit of a stretch to claim that they can be used to reliably predict changes.

        Another point is that much of the data referred to has been available and studied for several years and nobody else has found anything like this worth commenting on.

        I will need to read the actual paper more carefully to see how/why they make those claims.

        The headlines accompanying the paper also make me suspicious – they definitely sound “alarmist” – involving as they do claims about doom and gloom.

  11. Gregory T says:

    But Frank, I’m just being Ernest.

  12. Steve says:

    I missed your posts and look forward to your return, but unfortunately I can’t back up this statement with peer reviewed scientific publications.

  13. Gregory T says:

    You should allow for a balanced opinion. Perhaps 3% of the space, as long as it contains documented or per reviewed scientific evidence and it is pertinent to the thread. Any opinions/comments, of a scientific nature, not linked could be given one chance to rectify the oversite, or face a ban for the remainder of the thread.

  14. I agree with John. Since I got rid of trolls my readership has doubled and my hair stopped greying.

  15. john byatt says:

    and kill the trolls unless they link to science to back their claims,

    one warning then gone.

    too much time wasted, we now need to concentrate on the message and where we stand without action,

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 769 other followers

%d bloggers like this: